• Home
  • News
  • Fortune 500
  • Tech
  • Finance
  • Leadership
  • Lifestyle
  • Rankings
  • Multimedia

J.D. Power’s fuzzy math: Samsung’s 18 stars beat Apple’s 22

By
Philip Elmer-DeWitt
Philip Elmer-DeWitt
Down Arrow Button Icon
By
Philip Elmer-DeWitt
Philip Elmer-DeWitt
Down Arrow Button Icon
October 31, 2013, 9:05 PM ET

Click to enlarge.



FORTUNE — You can hardly blame the reporters and editors who wrote all those headlines proclaiming Samsung’s victory over Apple (AAPL) in J.D. Power and Associates’ 2013 U.S. Tablet Satisfaction Survey.

After all, that’s what J.D. Power’s press release said. Sort of.

But reporters who got their hands on the attached chart were left scratching their heads. It details Samsung’s performance in the five categories that resulted in the company’s 835 to 833 win over Apple in “overall satisfaction.”

What’s puzzling is that Apple did better than Samsung in four out of five of those categories, scoring the maximum five stars in performance, ease of use, physical design and tablet features.

The only category that Samsung beat Apple in was (duh) cost. And cost, according to Power’s press release, counts for at most 16% of the total score.

Bottom line: Apple took home 22 gold stars. Samsung took home 18. And then, for reasons known only to itself, J.D. Power and Associates put out a press release under the headline:


Samsung Ranks Highest in Owner Satisfaction with Tablet Devices

The company — a division of McGraw Hill — promised to put me in touch with the guy who managed the tablet survey.

UPDATE: “It’s very simple,” says Kirk Parsons, J.D. Power’s senior director of telecommunications services, who got back to me Friday afternoon. “It’s just math.”


Click to enlarge.

He explained that the real results — the ones that count as far as J.D. Power is concerned — are the numbers it reported in its press release and illustrated with the bar graph at right.

They come from a survey 3,375 tablet owners who were asked to rate their devices on five criteria using a scale of 0 to 1,000.

The results in each category were multiplied by a weighting factor — performance (26%); ease of operation (22%); styling and design (19%); features (17%); and cost (16%) — and the products summed.

J.D. Power won’t release any of the details, except to say that when the numbers were crunched, Samsung edged Apple by two points, 835 to 833.



The problem comes when J.D. Power uses its “Power Circles” to communicate the results to consumers.

Those gold circles are derived from same tablet survey, but they don’t reflect the original 0 to 1,000 scale. Rather, they show where each company’s products stand relative to its competitors — “among the best,” “about average,” etc.

This system has worked pretty well over the years.

But from time to time, signals get crossed: the Power Circles say one thing and the overall rating says another, as they do in the case of Apple’s iPads and Samsung’s tablets.

How can that happen? Parsons gives an example, stressing that these are not the real numbers:

Say Apple in four of the categories had a 10 point lead over Samsung — for a total of 40 points. But if Samsung had a big enough lead in that fifth category — say 50 points — that might be enough to push it over the top.

Okay. I can see that, especially since Apple sells the most expensive tablets on the market and Samsung among the cheapest.

But if cost is the criterion by which Samsung edged out Apple — trumping such factors as ease of use and performance — is “satisfied” really the best way to describe how those 3,375 survey participants feel about their tablets?

About the Author
By Philip Elmer-DeWitt
See full bioRight Arrow Button Icon

Latest in

CryptoBinance
Binance has been proudly nomadic for years. A new announcement suggests it’s finally chosen a headquarters
By Ben WeissDecember 7, 2025
2 hours ago
Big TechStreaming
Trump warns Netflix-Warner deal may pose antitrust ‘problem’
By Hadriana Lowenkron, Se Young Lee and BloombergDecember 7, 2025
6 hours ago
Big TechOpenAI
OpenAI goes from stock market savior to burden as AI risks mount
By Ryan Vlastelica and BloombergDecember 7, 2025
6 hours ago
InvestingStock
What bubble? Asset managers in risk-on mode stick with stocks
By Julien Ponthus, Natalia Kniazhevich, Abhishek Vishnoi and BloombergDecember 7, 2025
6 hours ago
EconomyTariffs and trade
Macron warns EU may hit China with tariffs over trade surplus
By James Regan and BloombergDecember 7, 2025
6 hours ago
EconomyTariffs and trade
U.S. trade chief says China has complied with terms of trade deals
By Hadriana Lowenkron and BloombergDecember 7, 2025
6 hours ago

Most Popular

placeholder alt text
Real Estate
The 'Great Housing Reset' is coming: Income growth will outpace home-price growth in 2026, Redfin forecasts
By Nino PaoliDecember 6, 2025
2 days ago
placeholder alt text
AI
Nvidia CEO says data centers take about 3 years to construct in the U.S., while in China 'they can build a hospital in a weekend'
By Nino PaoliDecember 6, 2025
1 day ago
placeholder alt text
Economy
The most likely solution to the U.S. debt crisis is severe austerity triggered by a fiscal calamity, former White House economic adviser says
By Jason MaDecember 6, 2025
1 day ago
placeholder alt text
Big Tech
Mark Zuckerberg rebranded Facebook for the metaverse. Four years and $70 billion in losses later, he’s moving on
By Eva RoytburgDecember 5, 2025
2 days ago
placeholder alt text
Economy
JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon says Europe has a 'real problem’
By Katherine Chiglinsky and BloombergDecember 6, 2025
1 day ago
placeholder alt text
Uncategorized
Transforming customer support through intelligent AI operations
By Lauren ChomiukNovember 26, 2025
11 days ago
Rankings
  • 100 Best Companies
  • Fortune 500
  • Global 500
  • Fortune 500 Europe
  • Most Powerful Women
  • Future 50
  • World’s Most Admired Companies
  • See All Rankings
Sections
  • Finance
  • Leadership
  • Success
  • Tech
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Environment
  • Fortune Crypto
  • Health
  • Retail
  • Lifestyle
  • Politics
  • Newsletters
  • Magazine
  • Features
  • Commentary
  • Mpw
  • CEO Initiative
  • Conferences
  • Personal Finance
  • Education
Customer Support
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Customer Service Portal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms Of Use
  • Single Issues For Purchase
  • International Print
Commercial Services
  • Advertising
  • Fortune Brand Studio
  • Fortune Analytics
  • Fortune Conferences
  • Business Development
About Us
  • About Us
  • Editorial Calendar
  • Press Center
  • Work At Fortune
  • Diversity And Inclusion
  • Terms And Conditions
  • Site Map

© 2025 Fortune Media IP Limited. All Rights Reserved. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy | CA Notice at Collection and Privacy Notice | Do Not Sell/Share My Personal Information
FORTUNE is a trademark of Fortune Media IP Limited, registered in the U.S. and other countries. FORTUNE may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website. Offers may be subject to change without notice.